Another camera query

robgilmo

dbphoto said:

RaymondLin said:

I've seen plenty of blogs where some photographer even shoot with just 1 prime lens, some by choice, some by accidents, some by constraints.   The thinking is then instead of "what lens do I need to get this photo" shifted to "what photo can I get with this lens.

The latter will result in a better photo the majority of the time because you are now thinking before you take the photo.

This.

During my 20 odd years as a full time pro, and over 1000 weddings and countless portraits etc, I used to have a large bag of gear but ultimately it was always a couple of prime lenses that were used the majority of the time.

Your feet are the best zoom you could have.

Regardless of whether it was my days using a Blad and film, Nikon DSLR or my last couple of years in the business using Fuji mirrorless, a 35mm and 85mm equivalent was all I ever actually really needed.

If for some reason I felt the urge to take some photos again on a small budget I would pick up a used Fuji XE-2 or XE-2s with a couple of lenses.

(I hung up my cameras and started a business 5 years ago that makes handmade fine art and  photographic albums for pro photographers, so I see a large and varied amount of work from all over the UK.  It is actually quite obvious which photographers are getting the shot using their eye and brain rather than their lens - and yes, I know, that sounds like pretentious bollocks, but it really is true)

Its a case of work with what you have and get the best out of it? Im no photographer and I only have two lenses, a 50mm prime and an 18-55, the prime is great for taking photos of the kids, works great in low light but even for landscapes it works a treat, the 18-55 gives me a wider angle and comes in handy for stuff like indoor photos but mostly I seem to be using the prime lens for general stuff. I do tend to get bokeh when I dont want it though! 

dbphoto

If I had to (and I once had to due to everything imageable going wrong, but that’s a very long story) I would shoot on a 50mm equivalent all day long.  Aperture is equally important though.  Give me f1.4 and I’m happy.  Anything more more than f2.8 becomes annoying.

RaymondLin

robgilmo said:

dbphoto said:

RaymondLin said:

I've seen plenty of blogs where some photographer even shoot with just 1 prime lens, some by choice, some by accidents, some by constraints.   The thinking is then instead of "what lens do I need to get this photo" shifted to "what photo can I get with this lens.

The latter will result in a better photo the majority of the time because you are now thinking before you take the photo.

This.

During my 20 odd years as a full time pro, and over 1000 weddings and countless portraits etc, I used to have a large bag of gear but ultimately it was always a couple of prime lenses that were used the majority of the time.

Your feet are the best zoom you could have.

Regardless of whether it was my days using a Blad and film, Nikon DSLR or my last couple of years in the business using Fuji mirrorless, a 35mm and 85mm equivalent was all I ever actually really needed.

If for some reason I felt the urge to take some photos again on a small budget I would pick up a used Fuji XE-2 or XE-2s with a couple of lenses.

(I hung up my cameras and started a business 5 years ago that makes handmade fine art and  photographic albums for pro photographers, so I see a large and varied amount of work from all over the UK.  It is actually quite obvious which photographers are getting the shot using their eye and brain rather than their lens - and yes, I know, that sounds like pretentious bollocks, but it really is true)

Its a case of work with what you have and get the best out of it? Im no photographer and I only have two lenses, a 50mm prime and an 18-55, the prime is great for taking photos of the kids, works great in low light but even for landscapes it works a treat, the 18-55 gives me a wider angle and comes in handy for stuff like indoor photos but mostly I seem to be using the prime lens for general stuff. I do tend to get bokeh when I dont want it though! 

It's partly a case of work with what you have, also partly knowing your tools well.  That means focal length, aperture.  You know certain shots looks better at certain focal length, you know the scenario where which lens works best.  Eventually you know when to go wide, when to go long.  There are not that many instances where you have to go ultra wide or telephoto.  Both of these extremes are extremes and only works in certain circumstances.

The main point is to engage your brain before taking the photo, the old saying goes that the most important part of the camera is the 6 inches behind it.  Having that constraints will force you to do that, make you think all the time and that is not a bad thing.

dazzajl

Choosing cameras and lenses is really no different to choosing guitars and amps. It's very easy to get stuck on the carrousel of this vs that and what options are best but how you play will always have the bigger impact than what you play it on. A shot taken on your phone is better than an opportunity missed because you didn't bother lugging your camera bag along and any camera that inspires you to pick it up and make images is better that superior beast that just sits in a cupboard.

My work kit is the smallest it's ever been but is still several DLSR bodies and lenses to cover anything that might be required. I still love to make images just for my own sake but I never use my work kit, as I don't like to feel like I'm at work, it's a totally different mindset. So when I'm shooting for my own pleasure I have a Panasonic LX-15 and a Fuji X-E3. If you're going to pixel peep, neither will match the quality of a FF DSLR and L glass but that's not important. They both inspire me to see the world around me as full of images waiting be found and that makes them the best cameras possible.

FWIW, I've not had the Fuji long and have been blown away by how good it feels to use.

ThePrettyDamned

dazzajl said:

Choosing cameras and lenses is really no different to choosing guitars and amps. It's very easy to get stuck on the carrousel of this vs that and what options are best but how you play will always have the bigger impact than what you play it on. A shot taken on your phone is better than an opportunity missed because you didn't bother lugging your camera bag along and any camera that inspires you to pick it and make images is better that superior beast that just sits in a cupboard.

My work kit is the smallest it's ever been but is still several DLSR bodies and lenses to cover anything that might be required. I still love to make images just for my own sake but I never use my work kit, as I don't like to feel like I'm at work, it's a totally different mindset. So when I'm shooting for my own pleasure I have a Panasonic LX-15 and a Fuji X-E3. If you're going to pixel peep, neither will match the quality of a FF DSLR and L glass but that's not important. They both inspire me to see the world around me as full or images waiting be found and that makes them the best cameras possible.

FWIW, I've not had the Fuji long and have been blown away by how good it feels to use.

95 percent of my shots are an xt2 and the fantastic 23mm 1.4. That lens is incredible. People wrongly compare it to the cheap 35mm f/2 lenses or 1.8 lenses but in reality is compares much more to the premium 1.4 models in terms of sharpness, colour and overall quality. 

The other 5 percent are split between the fuji 50mm f/2 (which is also amazing), a minolta 50mm 1.7 lens and a very old screw mount 135mm f/2.8, which is a lovely small lens for compressed, flattering portraits (equiv of 200mm f/4 if you like). 

I want the 55-200mm xf lens, and I would love for fuji to release either a 70mm 1.4 or a 135mm f/2.8. One can wish. 

stickyfiddle

Big wiz for @dazzajl ;

People worry too much about specs and full-size crop comparisons because that's an easy thing to read about but that stuff makes no difference when you're actually shooting (again, standard stuff around burst modes and read/write speeds notwithstanding). Fact is, if you're not printing images at A1 size or up AND selling them, the detail stuff doesn't matter a jot, compared with composition, ISO/shutter/aperture settings, light conditions, etc etc. 

Too many of us are obsessed with "best-ness", when in reality every camera above entry level is good enough for almost every task these days, so whichever one lets you get those other bits right most easily is the best option. 

menamestom

dbphoto said:.

During my 20 odd years as a full time pro, and over 1000 weddings and countless portraits etc, I used to have a large bag of gear but ultimately it was always a couple of prime lenses that were used the majority of the time.

Your feet are the best zoom you could have.

Usually, but only your subjects know they are having their photo taken.  If you are quietly trying to capture moments, without affecting them, you need distance and simply walking into the scene will change that moment.  I realise I sound like a stalker, but I prefer not to be seen or affect the scene, to capture those small moments that you hardly realise happen at the time.  For a family snap I'd be happy with a 50mm equivalent or even just an iPhone camera – classic portraits are not one of my interests really.

I do agree about the less is more with lenses, I used a manual camera with nothing but a 50mm lens for about 10 years.  That lens was great for lower light and long exposure night shots, I’d definitely be happy with just the equivalent and explore what it can offer.  This thread is making me think perhaps one of the main things that has prevented me from clicking with my Pentax DSLR (no pun intended), is that I’ve only ever had the kit lenses, 2 zoom lenses which may not be the best quality.  A single faster high quality lens may have kept my interest more (despite liking a higher power zoom lens for some stuff only).

I’m only a tinkerer, but can get lost for hours being creative with a camera, I don’t necessarily want loads of lenses and equipment, just a few good choices with good optical clarity and a camera that feels good and takes sharp pictures.  If I could add digital capture to my old manual SLR and single 50mm lens I’d probably be happy with that!

The trouble with photography, is compatibility, and a change in equipment is a bigger decision that with guitars, in that at least a Gibson guitar works with a Fender amp, whereas cameras I think it’s worth making sure if you change manufacturer, you future proof the decision a bit by at least considering what you may want, lens wise in the future.

RaymondLin

The more you know, the less you need.

Bridgehouse

Well I’ve just had a new camera delivered..

It’s a Minolta Dynax 505si body to go with the 35-70 zoom I picked up last week. Total cost? £8

Doing a minimalist B&W project with a friend - and this will be one of the cameras I use. Our plan is to do a project with the cheapest bits of gear we can get our hands on.

Bridgehouse

Bridgehouse said:

Well I’ve just had a new camera delivered..

It’s a Minolta Dynax 505si body to go with the 35-70 zoom I picked up last week. Total cost? £8

Doing a minimalist B&W project with a friend - and this will be one of the cameras I use. Our plan is to do a project with the cheapest bits of gear we can get our hands on.

Oh the irony! After I posted this I went to check eBay and discovered I’d won another speculative bid - a 500si and another 35-70 for £2.70

If it works I’m going to struggle to beat that...

dbphoto

menamestom said:

Usually, but only your subjects know they are having their photo taken.  If you are quietly trying to capture moments, without affecting them, you need distance and simply walking into the scene will change that moment. 

Well yes and no.

The best candid work is usually shot between 28mm and 50mm in my opinion.

HCB did just fine using almost exclusively 50mm and the best street photography I have seen is usually shot on 28mm or 35mm

menamestom

RaymondLin said:

The more you know, the less you need.

RaymondLin said:

I have a lot of lenses

RaymondLin

menamestom said:

RaymondLin said:

The more you know, the less you need.

RaymondLin said:

I have a lot of lenses

I am Joe B  

dazzajl

ThePrettyDamned said:

dazzajl said:

Choosing cameras and lenses is really no different to choosing guitars and amps. It's very easy to get stuck on the carrousel of this vs that and what options are best but how you play will always have the bigger impact than what you play it on. A shot taken on your phone is better than an opportunity missed because you didn't bother lugging your camera bag along and any camera that inspires you to pick it and make images is better that superior beast that just sits in a cupboard.

My work kit is the smallest it's ever been but is still several DLSR bodies and lenses to cover anything that might be required. I still love to make images just for my own sake but I never use my work kit, as I don't like to feel like I'm at work, it's a totally different mindset. So when I'm shooting for my own pleasure I have a Panasonic LX-15 and a Fuji X-E3. If you're going to pixel peep, neither will match the quality of a FF DSLR and L glass but that's not important. They both inspire me to see the world around me as full or images waiting be found and that makes them the best cameras possible.

FWIW, I've not had the Fuji long and have been blown away by how good it feels to use.

95 percent of my shots are an xt2 and the fantastic 23mm 1.4. That lens is incredible. People wrongly compare it to the cheap 35mm f/2 lenses or 1.8 lenses but in reality is compares much more to the premium 1.4 models in terms of sharpness, colour and overall quality. 

The other 5 percent are split between the fuji 50mm f/2 (which is also amazing), a minolta 50mm 1.7 lens and a very old screw mount 135mm f/2.8, which is a lovely small lens for compressed, flattering portraits (equiv of 200mm f/4 if you like). 

I want the 55-200mm xf lens, and I would love for fuji to release either a 70mm 1.4 or a 135mm f/2.8. One can wish. 

The Fuji lenses I chose (18, 27 and 56) are all wonderful and the current sensor in the X series cameras handles low light amazingly well for its size/pixie count. I'd happily take it all on a portrait shoot and have faith it will get saleable images. More importantly though, to me, it's all just a delight to use and makes me smile.

RaymondLin

On Fuji, it is 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 for me.  That translate to 35/50/85.  Probably my 3 favorite focal range.  I would like a 16mm at some point but that lens is so expensive.

stickyfiddle

I have the 35 f1.4 and 23 f2, plus 10-24 and 18-135 zooms. I really like the idea of one more wider prime - 16 or 14 would be good but usually I only take 2 or 3 of these out with me so I'm hesitant to buy more right now. But Fuji doesn't make a single bad XF lens. The 18mm gets some stick but even that can get great shots, especially on the latest bodies. 

What I love most about Fuji is not just low light performance but how much you can pull out of shadows in RAF files. 99.9% of the time you can rely completely on just ensuring you're not clipping whites and the rest will just sort itself out. And classic chrome. I'm a bit addicted to classic chrome...

dazzajl

stickyfiddle said:

I have the 35 f1.4 and 23 f2, plus 10-24 and 18-135 zooms. I really like the idea of one more wider prime - 16 or 14 would be good but usually I only take 2 or 3 of these out with me so I'm hesitant to buy more right now. But Fuji doesn't make a single bad XF lens. The 18mm gets some stick but even that can get great shots, especially on the latest bodies. 

What I love most about Fuji is not just low light performance but how much you can pull out of shadows in RAF files. 99.9% of the time you can rely completely on just ensuring you're not clipping whites and the rest will just sort itself out. And classic chrome. I'm a bit addicted to classic chrome...

I actually chose the 18 and the 27 based on the large amount of internet bashing and my take that most people are wrong

As you say, Fuji don't really make a bad lens. There is good reason that when Hasselblad went digital and needed lenses that stood up better to the demands that brings, they chose to work with Fuji. 

robgilmo

Out of curiosity, are prime lenses on the lower budget end usually sharper and better quality image wise than zoom lenses?

RaymondLin

robgilmo said:

Out of curiosity, are prime lenses on the lower budget end usually sharper and better quality image wise than zoom lenses?

Depend on the lens.

For example the 50/1.8 is sharp, fast but IQ? Hmmmmmmmm It's not compared to a 28-70/2.0 zoom if both are shot at 2.8.  But the 28-70/2.0 is about 25x the cost of the 50/1.8.

There are some really good cheap primes and there are some bad ones.

robgilmo

I am finding the IQ from the 50mm to be much better than the 18-55 but the former gets me too close sometimes, canon have a 24mm f2.8 for not a lot of money and I was thinking it might be better for indoors, the 18-55 is f4 so the 22 should cope better in low light?